Philosophical Inquiry in Education, Volume 26 (2019), No. 1, pp. 102-105 Review of Philosophy in Education: Questioning and Dialogue in Schools by Jana Mohr Lone and Michael D. Burroughs. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016 TREVOR NORRIS Brock University For several decades philosophers and educational theorists have advocated for the inclusion of philosophy into the K-12 school system instead of reserving it for the post-secondary context. Lone and Burroughs’ Philosophy in Education: Questioning and Dialogue in Schools avoids extensive philosophical considerations about the nature of philosophy or philosophical education, though much emerges implicitly through the activities they present. Instead, it is more of a practical handbook, guidebook, or reference. While Lone and Burroughs outline dozens of simple and effective ways to engage students of younger ages in philosophy, the book is more than just a “how to”: the authors present several compelling arguments that can be used to persuade students, parents, administrators and the general public that philosophy is worthwhile for those of younger ages. Recent years have seen a boom in literature arguing that philosophy in schools is both possible and worthwhile. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy now has an entry for philosophy for children.1 Early founders of P4C include Matthew Lipman and Gareth Matthews, who helped its establishment in the northeastern US in the 1960s and 70s. Examples of recent scholarship include Philosophy in Schools: An Introduction for Philosophers and Teachers by Goering, Shudak, & Wartenberg (2013) which is divided into distinctive approaches for elementary and secondary contexts. Its editors provide a convincing and thorough description of the merits of including philosophy in schools. Hand and Winstanley’s Philosophy in Schools (2008) includes consideration of some distinctive features of the UK context. Perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the historical emergence, current trends, central debates and foundational theories is the Routledge International Handbook of Philosophy for Children (Chetty, Gregory, Haynes, & Murris, 2017). Often such books combine advocacy with scholarship in the sense that, while they examine histories, debates, trends, and theories, they also provide rationales for inclusion of philosophy in schools, critiques of its opponents, and strategies for its application. Against the backdrop of this new enthusiasm for school-based philosophy, philosophical questions persist about who is ready to undertake philosophical study. Should philosophy be the exclusive preserve of universities? Many current initiatives claim ‘no’ and aspire to take philosophy beyond the academy and educational institutions. “Philosophy for all” (Steinbauer, 1998), “The School of Life” and “Public 1 See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/children/ Trevor Norris 103 Philosophy” (Sandel, 2006) all promote engaging in philosophy in public places, with the public, or with regard to ‘public’ issues. Elitists and traditionalists might balk at such attempts at popularizing philosophy, more fearful of corrupting philosophy than corrupting the young. But let’s not forget that Socrates himself didn’t limit his questions to those serious and scholarly souls found on the modern campus today. Should philosophy be preserved for the older and more mature? Here, elitists and traditionalists are joined by educational psychologists in hostility to P4C. Assumptions about cognitive development that became dominant in educational psychology following Jean Piaget were based on the notion that the abstract character of philosophy exceeded the cognitive capacities of most children (Piaget, 1959). But more recent scholarship argues that it is possible that the young might be able to engage in some form of philosophical thought and discussion. While children may not be able to read complicated primary sources or write elaborate essays, growing scholarship suggests that their persistent curiosity, capacity for abstract thought, and sense of wonder at the newness of being a person puts them in a good position to engage in philosophy. It is in this context that training programs and research about philosophy at the pre-college level have proliferated internationally. Many books on P4C could be grouped into the ‘but how do I do it?’ category, aimed less for scholars and advocates and more so at practitioners looking for concrete and specific strategies that can be readily used in the classroom. Examples include Philosophy for Kids: 40 Fun Questions That Help You Wonder about Everything, which is organized into sections titled ‘Values”, Knowledge”, “Reality”, and “Critical Thinking”, and includes activities, teaching tips, and a glossary (White, 2001). However, while this work presents many interesting questions that could provoke discussion with students, there is very little guidance about how to effectively incorporate them into the classroom. Lone and Burroughs add to this discussion in a very practical manner: while they consider the literature briefly, their emphasis is on practical strategies that K-12 teachers can use to promote philosophy in their classrooms. Lone and Burroughs describe chronological or historical approaches to teaching philosophy, which, they argue, together with the traditional lecture format, teach about philosophy instead of how to philosophize. While chronological approaches presented in a lecture format may introduce students to the content of philosophy—what philosophers have said—they may not necessarily promote independent philosophical thinking. That’s not to say that students aren’t “doing” something when they are being lectured to, or when they are reading philosophy; there is much going on as we sit quietly. Instead, the authors advocate for the actual doing of philosophy with students. What’s called for with younger ages is something more interactive, participatory, inquiry-based and dialogical. While much of P4C in the last 40 years has called for this approach, there has been a need for practical hands-on guidance and suggested activities. They begin by asking “Why introduce philosophy to young people?” They build some very strong arguments for its inclusion in schools and critique many common objections. Part II explores guiding principles relevant to the unique conditions of working with younger people by describing Learner- Centered Education and the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoI). These could be considered ‘best practices’ for philosophical work with young children. A highlight of this section is the chapter titled “Philosophical Sensitivity” which describes philosophical sensitivity as an “awareness of the philosophical dimensions of daily life, a feeling for the perplexities that lie behind much of what we say, do, and think…. a capacity to identify abstract questions in the most ordinary aspects of everyday experience… a keen attentiveness to the specific details of situations” (41). Perhaps akin to something like ‘aesthetic sensitivity’, the cultivation of philosophical sensitivity responds to the question: “What 104 Philosophical Inquiry in Education makes a question a philosophical?” This, in turn, helps promote an ability to think thoughts that might otherwise go unthought. This sets a helpful objective for teaching philosophy. The bulk of the book consists of Part III, “In the Classroom”, which moves through Elementary, Middle to High School, and provides detailed lesson plans for each context. For example, elementary lesson plans include “A Question Board” with the broad objective of helping promote reasoning skills. Students are asked ‘would it be good or bad if…?’, followed by any number of possible scenarios. Authors provide ‘chocolate rain’ as an example. Children are provided with sticky notes that can be placed on a board divided into two options: ‘good because’ and ‘bad because’. The authors provide some sample questions that can be asked after students have placed their sticky notes on the board: “what would be good about that choice?”, “what might or might not happen if that was the case?”, “do you think everybody would like that?” In other words, this activity requires that children not only make a choice but also justify their views and defend their position. An activity for high school students that is likely of even greater interest than others, as it not only deals with philosophy but also education, applies social contract theory to creating an inclusive classroom. Students argue positions to their classmates regarding how a classroom should be run, creating a class constitution. They learn about consent, contracts, compromise, negotiation and how to make an argument. Students fill out an anonymous questionnaire regarding their views on teachers, students, and the classroom, which are shared with classmates. Aspects of social contract theory are explored, and students are encouraged to imagine they are currently in a state of nature. The questionnaire is used to generate three components of the class constitution, which are then discussed and voted on. Sample class constitutions are provided in the book. A large study of high school philosophy courses in Ontario found that students enjoy such interactive and creative activities (Bialystok, Norris, & Pinto, 2019) The final section of the book articulates how to address power and privilege and other specific social and political issues in the philosophy classroom, including the need for respect for children as themselves a marginalized